tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post6758077135367959281..comments2016-12-09T04:27:56.120+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: First female DNA sequencedDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6091442316479817102008-05-27T06:40:00.000+03:002008-05-27T06:40:00.000+03:00Heheh Who said scientist don't have a sense of hum...Heheh Who said scientist don't have a sense of humour. I love the Watson/Kriek pun :)Kathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10712272480474094826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54174799152892516112008-05-27T06:16:00.000+03:002008-05-27T06:16:00.000+03:00"Van Ommen continues: “Moreover, while women don’t..."Van Ommen continues: “Moreover, while women don’t have a Y-chromosome, they have two X-chromosomes. [. . .] We considered that sequencing only males, for ‘completeness’, slows insight into X-chromosome varialibity. So it was time, after sequencing four males, to balance the genders a bit”."<BR/><BR/>Their stated rationale doesn't make much sense to me. I'm thinking they did this more for publicity and/or PC.<BR/><BR/>Sequence a man, and you get one complete haploid x-chromosome. Sequence a woman, and you get mixed-up data from two x-chromosomes--unless you have sufficient data and computational resources to untangle the actual haplotypes. This is certainly possible, but it's not free either.n/ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02378473351485233448noreply@blogger.com